It looks like the flat-earthers on the right wing have been right all along–they have not evolved. Sleeping Under Enon explains:

Creationists have often argued that they did not come from apes, a view usually ridiculed by the scientific community. Recent evidence, however, suggests that they may have actually been right. Scientists think that at the dawn of mankind, when the rest of the human race was busy evolving and adapting to their environment, creationists were refusing to take part in the evolutionary game, and as a result of this are therefore thoroughly unevolved human beings. The DNA of those who deny the glaringly obvious seems to be much more basic in structure. Instead of a double helix make-up like normal human beings, theirs is a single, thread-bare strand of pseudo philosophy. ‘What’s interesting’, says Dr. Spengler, ‘is that their DNA pattern is very unreactive, virtually ignoring everything that’s going on around it’. He went on to say that ‘anything more complicated than a black and white environment becomes too much for this type of organism, forcing it to, evolutionarily speaking, stick its fingers in its ears shouting ‘Blah blah blah, I can’t hear you”.

‘We didn’t believe it when we first checked the fossil records, but thinking about it, it makes sense’ commented Dr. Ray Stantz. ‘You might recall that human DNA shares significantly similar DNA to a banana. Well, creationists are much closer in genetic structure to an inanimate piece of fruit than other humans, it’s simply amazing we didn’t realise this before!’

Perhaps we should have realized this before, but some defenders of evolution are taking this well pointing out “it’s at least a silver lining to learn I don’t share a chromosome with those who watch Fox News’.”

While he was campaigning for president many opponents of Barack Obama claimed he was all talk but had no substance for taking job of president. Since elected the problem has been that he has done an excellent job of immersing himself in the job of president but has not done enough to maintain the political momentum of his campaign. E. J Dionne writes:

Seen from the inside, the administration is an astonishing success. Obama has kept his principal promises and can take credit for achievements that eluded his Democratic predecessors.

He pledged to have all combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this month and, as Obama will remind us on Tuesday, he’s accomplished just that. Congress enacted a comprehensive health-care bill and a sweeping reform of how the financial system is regulated. His rescue of the American auto industry worked, foiling predictions that he’d run GM and Chrysler as if they were arms of Chicago’s Democratic machine. There are many other legislative and administrative actions that, in normal circumstances, would loom larger if these were not such exceptional — and difficult — times…

But Obama and his party are also in a hole because the president has chosen not to engage the nation in an extended dialogue about what holds all of his achievements together, or why his attitude toward government makes more sense than the scattershot conservative attacks on everything Washington might do to improve the nation’s lot…

Obama’s mistake is captured by that disdainful reference to “politicking.” In a democracy, separating governing from “politicking” is impossible. “Politicking” is nothing less than the ongoing effort to convince free citizens of the merits of a set of ideas, policies and decisions. Voters feel better about politicians who put what they are doing in a compelling context. Citizens can endure setbacks as long as they believe the overall direction of the government’s approach is right.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was a genius at offering such reassurances, which is why his fireside chats are the stuff of political legend. Ronald Reagan never stopped campaigning for his conservative vision because he was determined to leave behind a thriving conservative movement. Roosevelt and Reagan both changed the country’s underlying philosophical assumptions.

I agree with this assessment of Obama, however would add that this has applied to the Democratic Party as a whole for several years. The Democrats have been very poor at articulating any overall reasons why people should support them. I suspect that this is partially because they have become such a big tent with varying priorities, and that concentrating on any set of reasons might alienate some Democratic voters.

The Republicans are far better at this. They understand how to put out a narrative as to what they stand for. This narrative might be totally different from what they actually do in office, but it does help them motivate supporters.

There’s yet another reason why the Democrats suffer from allowing the Republicans to win the spin wars. Not only do the Republicans distort the facts in defining themselves, they create far more damage by misleadingly defining what Democrats stand for when Democrats fail to define themselves.

One sad fact is that you can generally find at least 20 to 25 percent of Americans who will believe anything, regardless of how absurd. This includes the beliefs that Barack Obama is a Muslim, a Socialist, and/or was born in Kenya; the belief that the moon landing, evolution, and/or global warming is a hoax; and the belief that George Bush was a good president or that he was responsible for blowing up the twin towers. Add to that the poll results which show that 26 percent believe that Sarah Palin would be an effective president. Fortunately 59 percent are smart enough to realize she is unqualified for the post.

Even Republicans, who in recent years tend to have by far the most delusions about reality, are split with 47 percent believing she would be an effective president and 40 percent disagreeing.